I was a member of the ABA's Law Library Statistics Advisory Committee that
drafted the definition pertaining to how to count titles. Kathy Belgum's
recent interpretation on this bulletin board is correct. Let me provide some
background and then further explanation/interpretation.
Over the years, librarians complained about major discrepencies in the title
count statistics. For example, Library #1 with 300,000 volumes would report
40,000 titles, whereas Library #2, with roughly the same volume count, would
report two, three, or even four times the number of titles as Library #1.
What the Committee discovered was that the discrepencies developed primarily
from the way these two libraries counted microforms. Suppose both Library #1
and Library #2 owned the CIS Microfiche Library and that both libraries would
supply one title entry in their respective catalogs indicating they had the
complete set. Library #1 would report this as one (1) title; Library #2
would report the 30,000 plus titles in the CIS collection. According to the
intent of the ABA definition, Library #1 is correct; Library #2 is wrong.
Only if a library has cataloged separately each title in the CIS collection
can it report these 30,000 plus titles.
The more extreme example were the few libraries that would add a title entry
for LEXIS and WESTLAW and then try to report every separate title in those
databases.
Then it became common knowledge that CIS and other vendors were going to be
providing full cataloging for their collections. At that time, th ABA
Committee decided that if a library "obtained" this title-by-title cataloging
and added it to its catalog, certainly each title could then be counted.
Do discrepencies still exist in the ABA statistics? You bet. Why? Because
those libraries who report their statistics incorrectly either 1) don't read
the definition or 2) read it and refuse (for a variety of reasons) to adjust
their records accordingly.
This lengthy response is not intended as a justification for the definition,
only a clarfication. "Better" is not necessarily "bigger." In this instance,
"better" is "accuracy" and "uniformity."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald J. Dunn (413) 782-1454
Western New England College FAX (413) 782-1745
School of Law Library BITNET = DDUNN@WNEC
1215 Wilbraham Road
Springfield, MA 01119-2693
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/07/00 PST